November 17, 2025 • 32 mins
Send Superchats at any time here: https://streamlabs.com/jaydyer/tip Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnt7Iy8GlmdPwy_Tzyx93bA/join Order New Book Available here: https://jaysanalysis.com/product/esoteric-hollywood-3-sex-cults-apocalypse-in-films/ Get started with Bitcoin here: https://www.swanbitcoin.com/jaydyer/ The New Philosophy Course is here: https://marketplace.autonomyagora.com/philosophy101 Set up recurring Choq subscription with the discount code JAY44LIFE for 44% off now https://choq.com Subscribe to my site here: https://jaysanalysis.com/membership-account/membership-levels/ Follow me on R0kfin here: https://rokfin.com/jaydyer Music by Amid the Ruins 1453 https://www.youtube.com/@amidtheruinsOVERHAUL Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnt7Iy8GlmdPwy_Tzyx93bA/join #comedy #podcast #entertainment
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/jay-sanalysis--1423846/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/jay-sanalysis--1423846/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
I don't know what else there is, Like, what else
(00:26):
can we do and say? If you don't understand at
this point that papism is a giant criminal enterprise, then
I don't have anything else to talk to you about. Like,
I don't even want you around here. You can go elsewhere.
I don't need your friendship, I don't need your interactions.
(00:46):
I don't care about your channels. I don't care about
the clicks. Now, I'm going to have open forums, and
there's always the opportunity of Catholics want to call in,
But there are no more public Roman Catholics been worth
debating anymore. I mean I drank a lot as a
trade cat because deep down this shit was insane. I
don't know how do I make this work. I might
(01:08):
as well get drunk. I don't know. So I don't know, man.
The documents themselves are insinuitive of a more liberal position,
and they were intentionally written in such a way that
they would be that they could be weaponized later. A
lots of the Council fathers that were rhono Wites admitted this,
(01:28):
things like you know, what's our relationship to be with
the Muslims. Jay made reference to this earlier, what's our
relationship to be with the Hindus, And it sounded more liberal. Really,
what they were doing was quoting things from Pope Pius
the tenth, a very based older pope. They're quoting even
from medieval popes who acknowledged things like, technically speaking, the
(01:49):
Muslims are monotheists. Technically they're one of the Western religions.
Technically they worship the One True God, but they worshiped
the One True God in the false way Trads, you know,
rad Trad's Orthodox. Everyone gets worked up about this, but
it turns out that this is a very very old
medieval term that the Church is not the same for Hinduism,
because the Vatican too says the same as they they believe.
(02:12):
They not about Hindus, Hindus, not Moslims Hindus. Okay, read
what it says about hindu loss. In Hinduism, people explore
the divine mystery and they explore it and express it.
How do you explore the true mystery of God? You
can explore what you're looking for, explore Christianity. It's absolutely
don't explore Christianity and Hinduism. They seek release from the
(02:33):
trials of present life through ascetic practices and meditation and
recourse to God in confidence. I agree, all that's bad,
but you miss so it's bad my uncle remus. Wait wait,
my uncle Remis believes dogs like your uncle can fly.
Oh this is your dogmatic statements that are supposed to
provide clarity, right, need they need to be interpreted by you?
Be those are ambiguous?
Speaker 2 (02:54):
No? No?
Speaker 3 (02:54):
No?
Speaker 1 (02:54):
Are they clear or ambiguous? Perfectly clear? They're Hindu said
it was bad? Wait was it clear or bad? You
finished jail? I'll go after you're done. They have recourse
to God. Gods will do the same thing. So just again,
was that we have said of a collection irrelevant? So
that's a direct object. That's a genetic facis genetic fallacy
to say that because it is. You just said, I
(03:17):
don't know, so appealed authority, appealed authority, genetic fallacy, other fallacy.
They believe you're king of fallacy. The record, we say,
they believe you're lying. You added that explode? Where does
it say they do that? Read the sentence. It says
that they seek release, and they have recourse to God
and confidence, and the seek they have recourse, No, and
have recourse, They seek and have recourse, okay, and what
(03:40):
he's going to say and recourse finish up and recourse
What does that mean? Recourse they have They seek in
the canefidence and love in God. I'll speak once he's done.
So what in thematican two documents that I was very honest.
By the way, it's a genetic fallacy. Can I see
the book? Yeah? Yeah, read the sentence paragraph right here.
(04:02):
Let me read it again for you. In the relations
is going to keep it. In the religion of Hinduism,
people explore the divine mystery, explore thank you. I just
said that. It doesn't mean they found repeat each word
after I say each what have you said ascertained? If
they said ascertained, we'd have a hard time. So he
doesn't want me to read the whole quote because he
knows the later part is the difference beeen Hindu God.
(04:24):
It is very real. They have recourse to God in
confidence and love. They start the sentence over they seek.
Jay thinks that the sentence said that Hindus have ascertained,
haven't ascertained? It says that through exploring it. But you
said it was a bad statement earlier. No, no, no,
(04:45):
I said, no, it's not that's from read the document.
I'm saying that it's very easy to misinterpret if I say, mine,
my dear old uncle remus, why do he can fly?
Do we need you to interpret the document? You're saying,
why do we need you to interpret the you to
interpret the dog? The logic professor keeps making fallacies. Ask
(05:06):
me what Let me read what I thought it? Why
do you need to interpret them? Let me read it.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
There's a paragraph before that one I want to read.
I just want to read the full paragraph. Or actually
this is part of the full paragraph.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
It says.
Speaker 4 (05:16):
Throughout history to the present day, there is found among
different peoples a certain awareness of a hidden power which
lies behind the course of nature and the events of
human life. At times, there is present even a recognition
of a supreme being, or still more of a father.
This awareness and recognition results in a way of life
that is imbued with a deep religious sense. The religions
which are found in more advanced civilizations endeavor by way
(05:39):
of well defined concepts and exact language to answer these questions. Thus,
in Hinduism, people explore the divine mystery and express it
both in the limitless riches of myth and the accurately
defined insights of philosophy.
Speaker 5 (05:53):
They seek release from.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
The trials of the present life by ascetical practices, profound meditation,
and recourse to God in confidence and love.
Speaker 5 (06:01):
Buddhism in its various forms.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
Testing costs to the essential inadequacy of this changing world.
It proposes a way of life by which people can,
with confidence and trust, attain a state of perfect liberation
and reach supreme elimination, either through their own efforts or
with divine help. So to other religions which are found
throughout the world, attempt in different ways to overcome the
restlessness of people's hearts by outlining a program of life
(06:26):
covering doctrine, moral precepts, and sacred rights.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Yeah, this is our perfect liberation in Hindu.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
And real quick, I do want to read this little bit.
I didn't want to read the one paraphy. There's a
little bit more that I think is interesting.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
You already said it's bad. It goes one like me again,
another fallacy, hominem so fallacy.
Speaker 5 (06:48):
It actually says here we have a mute. But immediately follow.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Because he's calling out, I'm calling out the logic, professor.
I just want to point out that by and back.
Speaker 4 (06:55):
Okay, sorry, sorry, But immediately following this parent WHI says,
the Catholic Church reject nothing of what is true and
wholly in these religions. There it is as a high
regard for the manner of life and conduct conduct the
precepts and doctrines, which, although differing in many ways from
its own teaching, nevertheless often reflect array of that truth
which enlightens all men and women. Yet it proclaims it
(07:17):
is in duty bound to proclaim without fail Christ, who
is the way the truth in life. In Him, in
whom God reconciled all things to himself, people find the
fullness of their religious life.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Thank you, I was all that shows contradiction. No, that
doesn't help you.
Speaker 5 (07:33):
I actually agree with with the Catholic view.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
It's basically saying the way I interpret that, it's saying
Hindus and Buddhists are looking through a key hole and
seeing these fragments that they're not quite understanding properly. And
if they were to adhere to Jesus Christ and find
the way.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
The problem is the even non liberals at the council.
Problem is that only written by D fourteen, Jesus says
that he's the only way right, the truth in the life.
It's that. But I understand that the problem is that
you can It says in the religions of Hinduism and Buddhism,
men find love in God and they find they seek love. No,
(08:07):
it says they find it. They believe they unphrase says
seek it. Then it says they find it. Just like
I said, Read it again, just like it says Muslims
adore the one God. Well, well, Muslims are different because
they're not religion, No, they're not. Do they believe religion?
You believe? Do they believe in one God or multiple?
They believe in Monos? Says the Monos the Bible teach.
(08:27):
Does the Bible teach the Trinity? Or Monotheism the Trinity?
So the Muslims don't believe in the God of the body.
You know that? Do you know what the sense reference dichotomy? That? Okay?
Speaker 5 (08:37):
I have a question.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
So if you understand what sense reference dichotomy, does Jesus okay,
we can be referring to the same thing. Does Jesus
you describe it as yellow? I just and we're still
restarting to say that the Pharisees misunderstanding this reference. Does
Jesus think that the Pharisees accurately worship the Father? No,
of course not so then then that that undoes your argument,
undoes your Muslim lane because you said you understand the
(09:00):
sense reference dichotomy. Explain how by sense risk affirmative and
by reference it would be a negative answer. We can
be referring to the same thing. If you think Cleveland
doesn't that and I think they disprove your sense reference argument,
and we're not that you want to disprove your sense
with stance of the question, I can disprove it by
Muslims sense reference. Do Mormons believe in Jesus? No, Mormons
(09:22):
don't believe. Do they use the term Jesus? No, they
not use the terms absolutely, Mormons use the term wait wait, wait,
nor believe Mormons believe Jesus is I'm the one guy
that hasn't been interrupting. So Mormons believe that there is
a historical Jesus. He believes that he that that Mormons
(09:43):
Jesus is not the son of gods. I know what
they believe co religion. So just like Muslims, if they
say I believe in the one God. It's the quantifier
shift fallacy. No, that's just the quantity that's true. But
that's what the document is reference to the quantifier shift fallacy.
Then that undoes what what does that mean? What does
that mean? So it's like if I say I have
one mother, you have one mother. We all have one mother.
Therefore we come from the same mother. It's a quantifying
(10:05):
shift fallacy. So one God, well, we all believe in
one God. Therefore it's the same God. Vatican two is
using the quantifier shift fallacy. And read the line. Read
the line that you think is false definitively, because there
are no definitive statements you've read that are fault. Notice
that seeking searching, exploring, why do we need.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
It?
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Was just retarded. Just retard.
Speaker 5 (10:28):
The quartiis shift fallaws is retarded, I think.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
Okay, guys, guys, no claim that there's something false you
just read it is retarded. Okay, let me, let me.
Let's written by liberals. I gave you that it's written
by liberals, but it's supposed to clarify. So the paper
does the job of clarifying. But it's written by liberals,
and we need tim to interpret it for you don't
need me to interpret anything. I'm defending against an attack
that you're making. That's that's common miscar one true God,
(10:53):
living and subsisting in himself. Yeah, sift fallas set with
two bargaining dogs. Every time Muslims claim how about this,
Muslims claim to believe in one. It doesn't say it
says they adore. It doesn't say they claim. Muslims the
words now they adore by the sense of reference dichotomy.
Speaker 4 (11:16):
Okay, wait, wait, wait, hold on, I want to read this. Yea,
this is important. It says the church also has a
high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is
one living as merciful and.
Speaker 5 (11:29):
I'm what I said, I'm not.
Speaker 4 (11:32):
Done, the creator of heaven and earth, who was also
spoken to humanity. They endeavor to submit themselves without reserve,
to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted
himself to God's plans, and whose faith Muslims eagerly linked
to their own, although not acknowledging him as God. They
venerate Jesus a prophet, his virgin mother. They also honor
and even at times devoutly invoke. Further, they await the
(11:52):
day of judgment and the reward of the reward of
God following the resurrection of the dead.
Speaker 5 (11:57):
For this reason, they highly esteem.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
And upright life life and worship God, especially by way
of prayer, alms, deeds, and fasting.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
It.
Speaker 5 (12:04):
It does seem like.
Speaker 4 (12:06):
They're saying, as far as I can tell, Muslims are
worshiping the same God.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Yes, well, yes, this is this is a community college
primer on intro to religions and mean, how you couldn't
get quantified ship it's in your Islam is literally one
of the three monotheisms in Western religion. Is it trying? No,
It's not the God of the Bible. According to you,
I said, the Bible God is the Trinity. No, yes,
you did. Well, of course you don't think. I think
the Bible God is the Trinity. Then the Muslims don't
(12:32):
worship the same God because of the quantifier shift fallacy.
The Muslims don't worship the same God. It doesn't say
the same God as US book says. They do, thank you,
thank you. They don't worship the same God, Muslim, Are
you serious? What's going on? Heresion? They worship God who
is living and subsisting in the marciful Almighty Creator. No,
(12:53):
you said the same God as Us as us, you
and us. No, No, it doesn't say us. Oh so
it doesn't say us. A dude, Muslims worship how many?
How many gods do Muslims worship? Say Jay Dyer? How
many gods do Muslims worship? Worship? How many do they worship?
By the way, one or two or three? I don't
believe in generic monotheism. That's a that's a word that
(13:14):
it's a distinction. I also don't agree. I believe it's
the quantifiership fallacy. One thing. Can you tell me how
I don't believe that they believe they worship One doesn't
matter because the statement is that you said you understood
the sense r go worship. From the orthox perspective, we
reject the whole idea that there are Abrahamic monotistic faiths.
(13:35):
So even though Muslims might see themselves as that, when
we look at the Old Testament revelation, we believe that
it is the Trinity explicitly revealing itself in the Old Testament.
They don't know the name per se of the word Trinity,
but it's Yahweh, his Angel messenger and his spirit are revealed,
and in John five through nine, when Jesus debates with
the Pharisees, who were the monotheists, he consistently says, you
(13:57):
don't get the right God, you don't get the right pick. Sure,
Abraham worshiped me, Jesus says. In John eight, he says
Moses wrote about him, meaning that Abraham and Moses had
faith in Christ. This is a key point to undo
the natural theology argument that the Old Testament posited a
generic theism of just a one monotheistic God. If Abraham
believe in the Trinity, then the whole Abrahamic religion thing
(14:20):
falls apart, and Jesus says that to have faith in
him makes you a child of Abraham. Galatians three Paul
says exact same thing. So when Vatican two acknowledges that
they have the faith of Abraham together with us, we
believe that as a denial of Jesus teaching in John
eight that you can be a child of Abraham without faith.
I guess that's the art. That's fair. There are fundamentals
(14:43):
that are absolutely essential to have access to God or
to Christianity. So to deny, for example, the Trinity or
the incarnation puts us one outside of the bounds of
Christianity at all.
Speaker 5 (14:53):
I agree that, Like, look at it this way.
Speaker 4 (14:58):
There's a bouncer at a club and he says, if
you follow the rules, you can come to the club.
And half the people follow the rules and get led in.
The other half says that guy's telling us to go
bash the windows out, and they get thrown out. They
thought that's what the guy wanted. It's the same guy,
but they're doing it wrong.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
Well, getting we throw the we do throw people out right.
Speaker 4 (15:15):
My point is when when Vatican two says they worship God,
it's like the bouncer.
Speaker 5 (15:20):
Being like, yo, I never told those people to throw
bricks at the building.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
What are they doing? Well? The problem is not just worship,
but Vatican two uses the term of adoration, which in
Kalach theology is more specific than just a generic idea
of natural theology. Adoration is something that's a specific term
for like adoring the Eucharist in Calaic theology. And I
would also point out that when my opening statement I
mentioned the fact that the Council of vn, which is
a medieval Romancalach theology, which was involved in the crusades.
(15:45):
That attitude today that you see here is completely different
than the attitude then in the Middle Ages, where it
was the abominable sect of Muhammet. In the council they
call crusades against the Muslims to protect the Holy Land.
Sure attitudes change, Dogmadi, No, no, how can you be the
abominable sect of Muhammed? But now, but now together with us,
they adore the once your God. That's the contradiction to
(16:06):
they could be the abominable sect of Muhammad and still
worship one they don't, even though by references with us,
Tim Jay can I can I ask? Are these both?
These are both dogmatic councils from Vatican two? Okay, then
dogma contradicts hold.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
On the resolution of the debate was whether Christians and
Muslims worship the Saint God. If you concede that it's
possible to worship the True God even without in some
sense knowing him, then you've just mean I'm.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Not because of the passage is that the knowledge is
not getting you anywhere. Islam is predicated on rejecting the
Sun and as getting anywhere, getting anywhere.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
Because I agree with that, who cares if they're getting
anywhere in terms of.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
The adoration in Vatican two, suggest that there's a pipeline
that does attain to the to the to the object
that it's acceptable, and that's why the Pope's going pray
in the mosques. That's so they're paid in the moss.
That's not what. Can I share my screen to show
(17:13):
you what I'm talking about?
Speaker 2 (17:13):
No, not yet, No, not yet. It's my turn. So
I did the courtesy. I did the courtesy of.
Speaker 6 (17:19):
Giving everybody syllogisms that summarize my argument in simple logical form.
It's a courtesy, and it makes it an easy target.
It allows you to say, I disagree with premise one, or
I disagree with premise too.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
We did not get that from you.
Speaker 6 (17:32):
We got a hodgepodge of quotes and no logic connecting
them together. Your argument appears to be, and if you've
got a slide, otherwise correct me. The argument appears to
be if two people attribute different essential properties to it
to a subject term, they cannot refer to the same
insid The superman argument blows the objection.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Superman argument blows it apart.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
It's no different of the reference is irrelevant. No, it's
not if it's predicated on rejecting that thing, then it's
no longer referring to the worship and adoration of that thing. Jesus,
you need it? What's your What?
Speaker 6 (18:06):
What put it in a syllogism? You've got no logical connection.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Between the Yeah, you don't have to if you did.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
The argument is about whether or not the worship argument.
I dargue so we can evaluate logic. I came here, streamer,
I came here to demonstrate the magisterial contradictions, and I've
already done that. You said that God can be worshiped
(18:34):
as a demon and as the True God at the
same time, you already made nobody ever said that. Nobody.
I'll give you a one thousand dollars.
Speaker 6 (18:45):
I'll give you one thousand dollars if you can find
that on the take on thousand dollars.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
You said it was. You said it was both.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
I said an individual.
Speaker 6 (18:53):
I said, an individual like the Jews at times, could
worship both the true God and a demon. And therefore
it is not the case that ex.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
God. Get you anywhere.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Learn it.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
I'm not arguing. I'm arguing your dog.
Speaker 6 (19:12):
You're not arguing because it's your Dogmas contradict.
Speaker 1 (19:18):
You can I just ask, Jake, can I just ask.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
What you mean by it doesn't get you anywhere?
Speaker 1 (19:25):
What what do you mean by that? I argue that
that can choose teachings contradict previous teachings. That's my argument.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
No, just what do you mean by it doesn't get
you anywhere?
Speaker 1 (19:36):
I'm just argument it doesn't There's no Salvafic acceptance of
God in that in that in that relationship.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
That's what.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
The point of the My argument is that Vatican to
contradicts the previous dogmas. That's my argument. That's what I
came to argue.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
What does that argument have to do with the resolution
of the debate and the tell know of the debate.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
Worship and adoration that is accepted by God is what
I'm arguing about. So you can argue something else, but
who cares about them? My point is that can I
put my slide back up to make why I'm making
this point? My slide The reason that this matters is
(20:21):
that this is not an intellectual issue, Believe it or not,
this is a spiritual issue. Yeah, exactly, I know that
as a Tomas do you think that the problem is intellectual?
But it's not, it's spiritual. So when the popes act
on this Vatican two document that Muslims, Jews, and Christians
all worship the same God and they pray in the
(20:43):
synagogues and the moss towards Mecca, which according to Aquinas
are actions of apostasy. That's my argument. You have an
apostate papacy that you follow and that you defend. This
is your spiritual tradition meant about. You got no arguments.
This is the argument.
Speaker 6 (21:03):
Argument, argument has princes and conclusion contradict. The reference of
God depends on revelation and the and the Muslims just
pick it up. They borrow it and take it over
from the Jesus have no natural theology whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
The natural revelation in this project is the God of
the Old Testament. That's why David worshiped Jesus. And I
think in your last dream you said David didn't worship Jesus.
Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Not by that name? Did he did? David? Did David
ever mention Jesus?
Speaker 1 (21:39):
Did mention the name in the Book of Zachariah. It's
Yesua that appears you didn't know that.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
And do you think he was referring to a first
century Palestinian Jew, hun, do you hunt?
Speaker 1 (21:51):
You don't think that Jesus is the song? You didn't
realize that Jesus, he doesn't know that, he doesn't know,
doesn't even know that Jesus lived in first century Palace.
Who is the god of the Old Testament? You didn't
know that?
Speaker 2 (22:10):
Yes he is? Amen, brother, Amen, But a.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Look at this guy, demon jes eat with Abraham.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Probably so what so.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
You don't know what happened in Genesis? You don't know.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Probably you don't know, you don't know.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
Just make your this is boring, You're boring, You're boring.
Look at this guy.
Speaker 2 (22:39):
Make an argument.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
The argument is that I can't theogy talking over me.
Look at this guy. I don't know natural theology. You
like nothing that I am.
Speaker 6 (22:50):
Said, nothing that I have said, hinged on any natural theology.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
You're full of straw men, red harings.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
You said in your last dream, you said, in your
last dream. But Dad didn't know Jesus, you said, David
didn't know Jesus.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
Name, not as the first entry policy and you and also.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
So Jesus is you don't believe that he's You don't
believe he's the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
What's your point make an argument?
Speaker 1 (23:18):
You don't believe that Jesus is the angel of the
Lord in the Old Testament? Of course I did, Okay,
So what so Jesus says that Abraham believed in me?
Right John five?
Speaker 2 (23:29):
Yeah, so what?
Speaker 1 (23:31):
Yeah, it's Jesus in the Trinity in the Old Testament.
You were wrong, Yes, I know, yeah, yeah, yeah. That
doesn't follows. So it's not okay, what are you doing?
Speaker 6 (23:47):
A thousand dollars I'll give I'll give you one hundred.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
You can make a syllogism.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
If you can make a.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
Syllogi Trinity revealed, no argument is of course it is?
So what when Islam picks up that revelation, it's no
longer that God?
Speaker 2 (24:13):
Uh huh? Why not?
Speaker 1 (24:16):
What the hell are you? What are you talking about?
The triad?
Speaker 2 (24:23):
What? This is a nonsense?
Speaker 6 (24:25):
You refer to to try you and God without knowing
that God is trying, just as Clark Lewis linkn refer
to Clark knowing he can.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
When Lois says.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
Religion is a weekly he's referring to.
Speaker 7 (24:42):
All right, guys, hey, let me let me jump in here.
This is this is getting this is getting a little
bit out of hand. Let's let's let Trent make his
point about Clark Kent Superman real quick, just to let
him do that, and then we'll continue.
Speaker 2 (24:56):
Yeah, so what can what?
Speaker 6 (25:00):
What I'm saying is that you can refer to the
Triune God without knowing that God is trying.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
That's just simple. You can have a million examples.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
You can you can refer to people.
Speaker 6 (25:12):
You can refer to people in ways as they don't
know the essential properties.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Let's let him.
Speaker 7 (25:18):
Let's let him finish his thought, and then.
Speaker 6 (25:20):
It's called the day Dick, It's called the day dicto
de rey distinction.
Speaker 2 (25:24):
And you can easily. It happens all the time. You
can refer to things that.
Speaker 6 (25:29):
Have properties that you not only don't know they have,
but you can believe they don't have them.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
It's easy. People do it all the time.
Speaker 7 (25:36):
All right, now, let's let Jay come in and Trent
don't interrupt. Trent, don't interrupt.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
So again, he had no idea about Old Testament theology,
doesn't even know if Jesus is revealed in the Old Testament.
He denied it the other day in his stream. And
then when we come to this basic question I asked
him at the Old if the Trinity is in the
Old Testament, he doesn't know. Maybe I guess who cares.
The reason that matters is that he just argued a
few minutes ago that Islam picked up this revelation in
Jenner from what they heard Christians and others saying, Remember,
(26:03):
Muhammad was unlettered, he couldn't read, so he was getting
all this arly right. Islam is predicated not just on
natural theology. They do have a natural theology of debts
shikaz or Rashiet. On this point, it's predicated on explicit
rejection of trinity. In fact, in the Qur'an, their entire
chapters in sections saying you may not believe that Allah
(26:24):
is the Father, you may not believe in Triad. So
the analogies and examples that he gave fail because the
religion of Islam is erected on a specific rejection of
the Trinity. That's why it matters to go into the
Old Testament to talk about natural theology. And the reason
that Father Deacon brought up the core beliefs of natural
theology is that that's Swinburne and Aquinas and everybody's ideas
(26:47):
as to what the essential supposed attributes of God are
from natural theology. When Aquinas argues this point, he argues
it from natural theology. Vatican too is arguing natural theology.
And by the way, you notice they don't want to
talk about in the magisterial contradictions though for us Christians,
who judges mankind on the last day, Allah, no Jesus,
(27:13):
that's an explicit reference that it is not our God.
It is not the same judge, it is not the same. Right,
like the Jews and like the Samaritan woman, Basil says,
you've lost the faith, You've lost God. You do not
worship the God that we worship. Who is trinity? You know?
(27:34):
MEA says, I reject your trinity. Basil says, you no
longer have God. Saint John christilsom. Jews do not have God,
they do not have the Father, they do not have
the worship of God the Father. Exactly what Jesus says
in John five and John eight. What is the patristic
(27:57):
terminology here? Oh, it's exactly what we say, it isn't it. Yeah,
And I'm going to talk about them still lying about
Palamas because they haven't read Palamas. They don't know that
the entire first Triad is against natural theology. And Palamas says,
if Plato got one conceptual idea about God right, it
(28:18):
really doesn't matter at all because it's all demonic and worthless.
The very point that we're trying to make, getting one
thing or one attribute doesn't equate to worshiping and loving
the thing. All that equates to is getting one attribute, right.
That's it, And we're gonna see what Jesus says about
(28:42):
getting one attribute or a handful of attributes right. It
doesn't get you anywhere. It's not salvific. Now, they said,
I don't have a problem saying it's not soelvific. Oh, really,
you don't have a problem saying that it's Then why
does Vatican two use the terminology of salvific presence in Islam?
(29:06):
By admitting that, you're admitting that Vatican two is a
surrendering of the position. Remember Tomashevsky's opening slides. He believes
that Islam is not self effict and it does not
get you to God, but that the reference is the same.
(29:29):
And the whole point of this debate again is that
Vatican two's documents don't just say, okay, Muslims have a
conception of God. They think they love God, they think
they worship God. It says together with US Catholics, they
do it, you liars, along with us Muslims adore along
(29:56):
with US Catholics. Muslims adore the one God. Let's get
a little refresher. What did the medieval popes say they
worship demons? The reason this doesn't work is that it's
that's a false analogy, because in the case of certain
reference and intentionality, you might be able to intend the
(30:19):
same deity. And if if if no stra Ta tra
Vatican or Illuminingentium only kept it at that's what they believe,
you might be able to make the text work. The
problem is that that's not all that it says. It
actually says that they do adore the same deity that
we do. The one they do adore doesn't say they
(30:42):
think they adore the one God. It says they do
adore the one God, living and subsisting in himself, merciful
and all powerful, the creator of heaven and earth. They
take pains to submit to his undisputable and indiscrutable. His
inscrutable decree is just as Abraham. So in sentence, let
me finish in sentence two one and two of Nora
(31:06):
Tate three, there is no qualification that what has been
said so far is merely their intention or their perception.
It identifies the adoration, which in Catholic theology is a
term of worship with what Muslims already possess, and you
just admitted at the beginning that onto logically speaking, it's
(31:29):
not the same referent. So even if they intend it,
it doesn't matter because Vatican two says that they actually
adore that God. You finished, Yeah, okay, great, So.
Speaker 7 (31:40):
I understand what it says, and I think that it
could have said it better.
Speaker 5 (31:44):
But I also want to focus on.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
Why are you able to say that infallible dogmatic decrees
from the Vatican could be stated better.
Speaker 4 (31:53):
I'm not.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
You just said it could be better. So are you
more competent than the papacy?
Speaker 3 (31:59):
No, I'm not.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
Well, you just said it could be stated better, So
in this case you are right.
Speaker 2 (32:04):
No, I just want to.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
I'm not meaning to be rude to you, Calk Primer,
but this paper takes on Swinburne and other pretty pretty
popular proponents of tomistic natural theology go ahead.
Speaker 5 (32:19):
So what that paper says, it doesn't say.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
Documents contradict. So when you go to another place where
it says, well, do you admit that Jesus is and God?
That doesn't address my argument that the docum
I don't know what else there is, Like, what else
(00:26):
can we do and say? If you don't understand at
this point that papism is a giant criminal enterprise, then
I don't have anything else to talk to you about. Like,
I don't even want you around here. You can go elsewhere.
I don't need your friendship, I don't need your interactions.
(00:46):
I don't care about your channels. I don't care about
the clicks. Now, I'm going to have open forums, and
there's always the opportunity of Catholics want to call in,
But there are no more public Roman Catholics been worth
debating anymore. I mean I drank a lot as a
trade cat because deep down this shit was insane. I
don't know how do I make this work. I might
(01:08):
as well get drunk. I don't know. So I don't know, man.
The documents themselves are insinuitive of a more liberal position,
and they were intentionally written in such a way that
they would be that they could be weaponized later. A
lots of the Council fathers that were rhono Wites admitted this,
(01:28):
things like you know, what's our relationship to be with
the Muslims. Jay made reference to this earlier, what's our
relationship to be with the Hindus, And it sounded more liberal. Really,
what they were doing was quoting things from Pope Pius
the tenth, a very based older pope. They're quoting even
from medieval popes who acknowledged things like, technically speaking, the
(01:49):
Muslims are monotheists. Technically they're one of the Western religions.
Technically they worship the One True God, but they worshiped
the One True God in the false way Trads, you know,
rad Trad's Orthodox. Everyone gets worked up about this, but
it turns out that this is a very very old
medieval term that the Church is not the same for Hinduism,
because the Vatican too says the same as they they believe.
(02:12):
They not about Hindus, Hindus, not Moslims Hindus. Okay, read
what it says about hindu loss. In Hinduism, people explore
the divine mystery and they explore it and express it.
How do you explore the true mystery of God? You
can explore what you're looking for, explore Christianity. It's absolutely
don't explore Christianity and Hinduism. They seek release from the
(02:33):
trials of present life through ascetic practices and meditation and
recourse to God in confidence. I agree, all that's bad,
but you miss so it's bad my uncle remus. Wait wait,
my uncle Remis believes dogs like your uncle can fly.
Oh this is your dogmatic statements that are supposed to
provide clarity, right, need they need to be interpreted by you?
Be those are ambiguous?
Speaker 2 (02:54):
No? No?
Speaker 3 (02:54):
No?
Speaker 1 (02:54):
Are they clear or ambiguous? Perfectly clear? They're Hindu said
it was bad? Wait was it clear or bad? You
finished jail? I'll go after you're done. They have recourse
to God. Gods will do the same thing. So just again,
was that we have said of a collection irrelevant? So
that's a direct object. That's a genetic facis genetic fallacy
to say that because it is. You just said, I
(03:17):
don't know, so appealed authority, appealed authority, genetic fallacy, other fallacy.
They believe you're king of fallacy. The record, we say,
they believe you're lying. You added that explode? Where does
it say they do that? Read the sentence. It says
that they seek release, and they have recourse to God
and confidence, and the seek they have recourse, No, and
have recourse, They seek and have recourse, okay, and what
(03:40):
he's going to say and recourse finish up and recourse
What does that mean? Recourse they have They seek in
the canefidence and love in God. I'll speak once he's done.
So what in thematican two documents that I was very honest.
By the way, it's a genetic fallacy. Can I see
the book? Yeah? Yeah, read the sentence paragraph right here.
(04:02):
Let me read it again for you. In the relations
is going to keep it. In the religion of Hinduism,
people explore the divine mystery, explore thank you. I just
said that. It doesn't mean they found repeat each word
after I say each what have you said ascertained? If
they said ascertained, we'd have a hard time. So he
doesn't want me to read the whole quote because he
knows the later part is the difference beeen Hindu God.
(04:24):
It is very real. They have recourse to God in
confidence and love. They start the sentence over they seek.
Jay thinks that the sentence said that Hindus have ascertained,
haven't ascertained? It says that through exploring it. But you
said it was a bad statement earlier. No, no, no,
(04:45):
I said, no, it's not that's from read the document.
I'm saying that it's very easy to misinterpret if I say, mine,
my dear old uncle remus, why do he can fly?
Do we need you to interpret the document? You're saying,
why do we need you to interpret the you to
interpret the dog? The logic professor keeps making fallacies. Ask
(05:06):
me what Let me read what I thought it? Why
do you need to interpret them? Let me read it.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
There's a paragraph before that one I want to read.
I just want to read the full paragraph. Or actually
this is part of the full paragraph.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
It says.
Speaker 4 (05:16):
Throughout history to the present day, there is found among
different peoples a certain awareness of a hidden power which
lies behind the course of nature and the events of
human life. At times, there is present even a recognition
of a supreme being, or still more of a father.
This awareness and recognition results in a way of life
that is imbued with a deep religious sense. The religions
which are found in more advanced civilizations endeavor by way
(05:39):
of well defined concepts and exact language to answer these questions. Thus,
in Hinduism, people explore the divine mystery and express it
both in the limitless riches of myth and the accurately
defined insights of philosophy.
Speaker 5 (05:53):
They seek release from.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
The trials of the present life by ascetical practices, profound meditation,
and recourse to God in confidence and love.
Speaker 5 (06:01):
Buddhism in its various forms.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
Testing costs to the essential inadequacy of this changing world.
It proposes a way of life by which people can,
with confidence and trust, attain a state of perfect liberation
and reach supreme elimination, either through their own efforts or
with divine help. So to other religions which are found
throughout the world, attempt in different ways to overcome the
restlessness of people's hearts by outlining a program of life
(06:26):
covering doctrine, moral precepts, and sacred rights.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Yeah, this is our perfect liberation in Hindu.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
And real quick, I do want to read this little bit.
I didn't want to read the one paraphy. There's a
little bit more that I think is interesting.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
You already said it's bad. It goes one like me again,
another fallacy, hominem so fallacy.
Speaker 5 (06:48):
It actually says here we have a mute. But immediately follow.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Because he's calling out, I'm calling out the logic, professor.
I just want to point out that by and back.
Speaker 4 (06:55):
Okay, sorry, sorry, But immediately following this parent WHI says,
the Catholic Church reject nothing of what is true and
wholly in these religions. There it is as a high
regard for the manner of life and conduct conduct the
precepts and doctrines, which, although differing in many ways from
its own teaching, nevertheless often reflect array of that truth
which enlightens all men and women. Yet it proclaims it
(07:17):
is in duty bound to proclaim without fail Christ, who
is the way the truth in life. In Him, in
whom God reconciled all things to himself, people find the
fullness of their religious life.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Thank you, I was all that shows contradiction. No, that
doesn't help you.
Speaker 5 (07:33):
I actually agree with with the Catholic view.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
It's basically saying the way I interpret that, it's saying
Hindus and Buddhists are looking through a key hole and
seeing these fragments that they're not quite understanding properly. And
if they were to adhere to Jesus Christ and find
the way.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
The problem is the even non liberals at the council.
Problem is that only written by D fourteen, Jesus says
that he's the only way right, the truth in the life.
It's that. But I understand that the problem is that
you can It says in the religions of Hinduism and Buddhism,
men find love in God and they find they seek love. No,
(08:07):
it says they find it. They believe they unphrase says
seek it. Then it says they find it. Just like
I said, Read it again, just like it says Muslims
adore the one God. Well, well, Muslims are different because
they're not religion, No, they're not. Do they believe religion?
You believe? Do they believe in one God or multiple?
They believe in Monos? Says the Monos the Bible teach.
(08:27):
Does the Bible teach the Trinity? Or Monotheism the Trinity?
So the Muslims don't believe in the God of the body.
You know that? Do you know what the sense reference dichotomy? That? Okay?
Speaker 5 (08:37):
I have a question.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
So if you understand what sense reference dichotomy, does Jesus okay,
we can be referring to the same thing. Does Jesus
you describe it as yellow? I just and we're still
restarting to say that the Pharisees misunderstanding this reference. Does
Jesus think that the Pharisees accurately worship the Father? No,
of course not so then then that that undoes your argument,
undoes your Muslim lane because you said you understand the
(09:00):
sense reference dichotomy. Explain how by sense risk affirmative and
by reference it would be a negative answer. We can
be referring to the same thing. If you think Cleveland
doesn't that and I think they disprove your sense reference argument,
and we're not that you want to disprove your sense
with stance of the question, I can disprove it by
Muslims sense reference. Do Mormons believe in Jesus? No, Mormons
(09:22):
don't believe. Do they use the term Jesus? No, they
not use the terms absolutely, Mormons use the term wait wait, wait,
nor believe Mormons believe Jesus is I'm the one guy
that hasn't been interrupting. So Mormons believe that there is
a historical Jesus. He believes that he that that Mormons
(09:43):
Jesus is not the son of gods. I know what
they believe co religion. So just like Muslims, if they
say I believe in the one God. It's the quantifier
shift fallacy. No, that's just the quantity that's true. But
that's what the document is reference to the quantifier shift fallacy.
Then that undoes what what does that mean? What does
that mean? So it's like if I say I have
one mother, you have one mother. We all have one mother.
Therefore we come from the same mother. It's a quantifying
(10:05):
shift fallacy. So one God, well, we all believe in
one God. Therefore it's the same God. Vatican two is
using the quantifier shift fallacy. And read the line. Read
the line that you think is false definitively, because there
are no definitive statements you've read that are fault. Notice
that seeking searching, exploring, why do we need.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
It?
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Was just retarded. Just retard.
Speaker 5 (10:28):
The quartiis shift fallaws is retarded, I think.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
Okay, guys, guys, no claim that there's something false you
just read it is retarded. Okay, let me, let me.
Let's written by liberals. I gave you that it's written
by liberals, but it's supposed to clarify. So the paper
does the job of clarifying. But it's written by liberals,
and we need tim to interpret it for you don't
need me to interpret anything. I'm defending against an attack
that you're making. That's that's common miscar one true God,
(10:53):
living and subsisting in himself. Yeah, sift fallas set with
two bargaining dogs. Every time Muslims claim how about this,
Muslims claim to believe in one. It doesn't say it
says they adore. It doesn't say they claim. Muslims the
words now they adore by the sense of reference dichotomy.
Speaker 4 (11:16):
Okay, wait, wait, wait, hold on, I want to read this. Yea,
this is important. It says the church also has a
high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is
one living as merciful and.
Speaker 5 (11:29):
I'm what I said, I'm not.
Speaker 4 (11:32):
Done, the creator of heaven and earth, who was also
spoken to humanity. They endeavor to submit themselves without reserve,
to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted
himself to God's plans, and whose faith Muslims eagerly linked
to their own, although not acknowledging him as God. They
venerate Jesus a prophet, his virgin mother. They also honor
and even at times devoutly invoke. Further, they await the
(11:52):
day of judgment and the reward of the reward of
God following the resurrection of the dead.
Speaker 5 (11:57):
For this reason, they highly esteem.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
And upright life life and worship God, especially by way
of prayer, alms, deeds, and fasting.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
It.
Speaker 5 (12:04):
It does seem like.
Speaker 4 (12:06):
They're saying, as far as I can tell, Muslims are
worshiping the same God.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Yes, well, yes, this is this is a community college
primer on intro to religions and mean, how you couldn't
get quantified ship it's in your Islam is literally one
of the three monotheisms in Western religion. Is it trying? No,
It's not the God of the Bible. According to you,
I said, the Bible God is the Trinity. No, yes,
you did. Well, of course you don't think. I think
the Bible God is the Trinity. Then the Muslims don't
(12:32):
worship the same God because of the quantifier shift fallacy.
The Muslims don't worship the same God. It doesn't say
the same God as US book says. They do, thank you,
thank you. They don't worship the same God, Muslim, Are
you serious? What's going on? Heresion? They worship God who
is living and subsisting in the marciful Almighty Creator. No,
(12:53):
you said the same God as Us as us, you
and us. No, No, it doesn't say us. Oh so
it doesn't say us. A dude, Muslims worship how many?
How many gods do Muslims worship? Say Jay Dyer? How
many gods do Muslims worship? Worship? How many do they worship?
By the way, one or two or three? I don't
believe in generic monotheism. That's a that's a word that
(13:14):
it's a distinction. I also don't agree. I believe it's
the quantifiership fallacy. One thing. Can you tell me how
I don't believe that they believe they worship One doesn't
matter because the statement is that you said you understood
the sense r go worship. From the orthox perspective, we
reject the whole idea that there are Abrahamic monotistic faiths.
(13:35):
So even though Muslims might see themselves as that, when
we look at the Old Testament revelation, we believe that
it is the Trinity explicitly revealing itself in the Old Testament.
They don't know the name per se of the word Trinity,
but it's Yahweh, his Angel messenger and his spirit are revealed,
and in John five through nine, when Jesus debates with
the Pharisees, who were the monotheists, he consistently says, you
(13:57):
don't get the right God, you don't get the right pick. Sure,
Abraham worshiped me, Jesus says. In John eight, he says
Moses wrote about him, meaning that Abraham and Moses had
faith in Christ. This is a key point to undo
the natural theology argument that the Old Testament posited a
generic theism of just a one monotheistic God. If Abraham
believe in the Trinity, then the whole Abrahamic religion thing
(14:20):
falls apart, and Jesus says that to have faith in
him makes you a child of Abraham. Galatians three Paul
says exact same thing. So when Vatican two acknowledges that
they have the faith of Abraham together with us, we
believe that as a denial of Jesus teaching in John
eight that you can be a child of Abraham without faith.
I guess that's the art. That's fair. There are fundamentals
(14:43):
that are absolutely essential to have access to God or
to Christianity. So to deny, for example, the Trinity or
the incarnation puts us one outside of the bounds of
Christianity at all.
Speaker 5 (14:53):
I agree that, Like, look at it this way.
Speaker 4 (14:58):
There's a bouncer at a club and he says, if
you follow the rules, you can come to the club.
And half the people follow the rules and get led in.
The other half says that guy's telling us to go
bash the windows out, and they get thrown out. They
thought that's what the guy wanted. It's the same guy,
but they're doing it wrong.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
Well, getting we throw the we do throw people out right.
Speaker 4 (15:15):
My point is when when Vatican two says they worship God,
it's like the bouncer.
Speaker 5 (15:20):
Being like, yo, I never told those people to throw
bricks at the building.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
What are they doing? Well? The problem is not just worship,
but Vatican two uses the term of adoration, which in
Kalach theology is more specific than just a generic idea
of natural theology. Adoration is something that's a specific term
for like adoring the Eucharist in Calaic theology. And I
would also point out that when my opening statement I
mentioned the fact that the Council of vn, which is
a medieval Romancalach theology, which was involved in the crusades.
(15:45):
That attitude today that you see here is completely different
than the attitude then in the Middle Ages, where it
was the abominable sect of Muhammet. In the council they
call crusades against the Muslims to protect the Holy Land.
Sure attitudes change, Dogmadi, No, no, how can you be the
abominable sect of Muhammed? But now, but now together with us,
they adore the once your God. That's the contradiction to
(16:06):
they could be the abominable sect of Muhammad and still
worship one they don't, even though by references with us,
Tim Jay can I can I ask? Are these both?
These are both dogmatic councils from Vatican two? Okay, then
dogma contradicts hold.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
On the resolution of the debate was whether Christians and
Muslims worship the Saint God. If you concede that it's
possible to worship the True God even without in some
sense knowing him, then you've just mean I'm.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Not because of the passage is that the knowledge is
not getting you anywhere. Islam is predicated on rejecting the
Sun and as getting anywhere, getting anywhere.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
Because I agree with that, who cares if they're getting
anywhere in terms of.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
The adoration in Vatican two, suggest that there's a pipeline
that does attain to the to the to the object
that it's acceptable, and that's why the Pope's going pray
in the mosques. That's so they're paid in the moss.
That's not what. Can I share my screen to show
(17:13):
you what I'm talking about?
Speaker 2 (17:13):
No, not yet, No, not yet. It's my turn. So
I did the courtesy. I did the courtesy of.
Speaker 6 (17:19):
Giving everybody syllogisms that summarize my argument in simple logical form.
It's a courtesy, and it makes it an easy target.
It allows you to say, I disagree with premise one, or
I disagree with premise too.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
We did not get that from you.
Speaker 6 (17:32):
We got a hodgepodge of quotes and no logic connecting
them together. Your argument appears to be, and if you've
got a slide, otherwise correct me. The argument appears to
be if two people attribute different essential properties to it
to a subject term, they cannot refer to the same
insid The superman argument blows the objection.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Superman argument blows it apart.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
It's no different of the reference is irrelevant. No, it's
not if it's predicated on rejecting that thing, then it's
no longer referring to the worship and adoration of that thing. Jesus,
you need it? What's your What?
Speaker 6 (18:06):
What put it in a syllogism? You've got no logical connection.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Between the Yeah, you don't have to if you did.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
The argument is about whether or not the worship argument.
I dargue so we can evaluate logic. I came here, streamer,
I came here to demonstrate the magisterial contradictions, and I've
already done that. You said that God can be worshiped
(18:34):
as a demon and as the True God at the
same time, you already made nobody ever said that. Nobody.
I'll give you a one thousand dollars.
Speaker 6 (18:45):
I'll give you one thousand dollars if you can find
that on the take on thousand dollars.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
You said it was. You said it was both.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
I said an individual.
Speaker 6 (18:53):
I said, an individual like the Jews at times, could
worship both the true God and a demon. And therefore
it is not the case that ex.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
God. Get you anywhere.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Learn it.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
I'm not arguing. I'm arguing your dog.
Speaker 6 (19:12):
You're not arguing because it's your Dogmas contradict.
Speaker 1 (19:18):
You can I just ask, Jake, can I just ask.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
What you mean by it doesn't get you anywhere?
Speaker 1 (19:25):
What what do you mean by that? I argue that
that can choose teachings contradict previous teachings. That's my argument.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
No, just what do you mean by it doesn't get
you anywhere?
Speaker 1 (19:36):
I'm just argument it doesn't There's no Salvafic acceptance of
God in that in that in that relationship.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
That's what.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
The point of the My argument is that Vatican to
contradicts the previous dogmas. That's my argument. That's what I
came to argue.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
What does that argument have to do with the resolution
of the debate and the tell know of the debate.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
Worship and adoration that is accepted by God is what
I'm arguing about. So you can argue something else, but
who cares about them? My point is that can I
put my slide back up to make why I'm making
this point? My slide The reason that this matters is
(20:21):
that this is not an intellectual issue, Believe it or not,
this is a spiritual issue. Yeah, exactly, I know that
as a Tomas do you think that the problem is intellectual?
But it's not, it's spiritual. So when the popes act
on this Vatican two document that Muslims, Jews, and Christians
all worship the same God and they pray in the
(20:43):
synagogues and the moss towards Mecca, which according to Aquinas
are actions of apostasy. That's my argument. You have an
apostate papacy that you follow and that you defend. This
is your spiritual tradition meant about. You got no arguments.
This is the argument.
Speaker 6 (21:03):
Argument, argument has princes and conclusion contradict. The reference of
God depends on revelation and the and the Muslims just
pick it up. They borrow it and take it over
from the Jesus have no natural theology whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
The natural revelation in this project is the God of
the Old Testament. That's why David worshiped Jesus. And I
think in your last dream you said David didn't worship Jesus.
Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Not by that name? Did he did? David? Did David
ever mention Jesus?
Speaker 1 (21:39):
Did mention the name in the Book of Zachariah. It's
Yesua that appears you didn't know that.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
And do you think he was referring to a first
century Palestinian Jew, hun, do you hunt?
Speaker 1 (21:51):
You don't think that Jesus is the song? You didn't
realize that Jesus, he doesn't know that, he doesn't know,
doesn't even know that Jesus lived in first century Palace.
Who is the god of the Old Testament? You didn't
know that?
Speaker 2 (22:10):
Yes he is? Amen, brother, Amen, But a.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Look at this guy, demon jes eat with Abraham.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Probably so what so.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
You don't know what happened in Genesis? You don't know.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Probably you don't know, you don't know.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
Just make your this is boring, You're boring, You're boring.
Look at this guy.
Speaker 2 (22:39):
Make an argument.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
The argument is that I can't theogy talking over me.
Look at this guy. I don't know natural theology. You
like nothing that I am.
Speaker 6 (22:50):
Said, nothing that I have said, hinged on any natural theology.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
You're full of straw men, red harings.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
You said in your last dream, you said, in your
last dream. But Dad didn't know Jesus, you said, David
didn't know Jesus.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
Name, not as the first entry policy and you and also.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
So Jesus is you don't believe that he's You don't
believe he's the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
What's your point make an argument?
Speaker 1 (23:18):
You don't believe that Jesus is the angel of the
Lord in the Old Testament? Of course I did, Okay,
So what so Jesus says that Abraham believed in me?
Right John five?
Speaker 2 (23:29):
Yeah, so what?
Speaker 1 (23:31):
Yeah, it's Jesus in the Trinity in the Old Testament.
You were wrong, Yes, I know, yeah, yeah, yeah. That
doesn't follows. So it's not okay, what are you doing?
Speaker 6 (23:47):
A thousand dollars I'll give I'll give you one hundred.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
You can make a syllogism.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
If you can make a.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
Syllogi Trinity revealed, no argument is of course it is?
So what when Islam picks up that revelation, it's no
longer that God?
Speaker 2 (24:13):
Uh huh? Why not?
Speaker 1 (24:16):
What the hell are you? What are you talking about?
The triad?
Speaker 2 (24:23):
What? This is a nonsense?
Speaker 6 (24:25):
You refer to to try you and God without knowing
that God is trying, just as Clark Lewis linkn refer
to Clark knowing he can.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
When Lois says.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
Religion is a weekly he's referring to.
Speaker 7 (24:42):
All right, guys, hey, let me let me jump in here.
This is this is getting this is getting a little
bit out of hand. Let's let's let Trent make his
point about Clark Kent Superman real quick, just to let
him do that, and then we'll continue.
Speaker 2 (24:56):
Yeah, so what can what?
Speaker 6 (25:00):
What I'm saying is that you can refer to the
Triune God without knowing that God is trying.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
That's just simple. You can have a million examples.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
You can you can refer to people.
Speaker 6 (25:12):
You can refer to people in ways as they don't
know the essential properties.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Let's let him.
Speaker 7 (25:18):
Let's let him finish his thought, and then.
Speaker 6 (25:20):
It's called the day Dick, It's called the day dicto
de rey distinction.
Speaker 2 (25:24):
And you can easily. It happens all the time. You
can refer to things that.
Speaker 6 (25:29):
Have properties that you not only don't know they have,
but you can believe they don't have them.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
It's easy. People do it all the time.
Speaker 7 (25:36):
All right, now, let's let Jay come in and Trent
don't interrupt. Trent, don't interrupt.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
So again, he had no idea about Old Testament theology,
doesn't even know if Jesus is revealed in the Old Testament.
He denied it the other day in his stream. And
then when we come to this basic question I asked
him at the Old if the Trinity is in the
Old Testament, he doesn't know. Maybe I guess who cares.
The reason that matters is that he just argued a
few minutes ago that Islam picked up this revelation in
Jenner from what they heard Christians and others saying, Remember,
(26:03):
Muhammad was unlettered, he couldn't read, so he was getting
all this arly right. Islam is predicated not just on
natural theology. They do have a natural theology of debts
shikaz or Rashiet. On this point, it's predicated on explicit
rejection of trinity. In fact, in the Qur'an, their entire
chapters in sections saying you may not believe that Allah
(26:24):
is the Father, you may not believe in Triad. So
the analogies and examples that he gave fail because the
religion of Islam is erected on a specific rejection of
the Trinity. That's why it matters to go into the
Old Testament to talk about natural theology. And the reason
that Father Deacon brought up the core beliefs of natural
theology is that that's Swinburne and Aquinas and everybody's ideas
(26:47):
as to what the essential supposed attributes of God are
from natural theology. When Aquinas argues this point, he argues
it from natural theology. Vatican too is arguing natural theology.
And by the way, you notice they don't want to
talk about in the magisterial contradictions though for us Christians,
who judges mankind on the last day, Allah, no Jesus,
(27:13):
that's an explicit reference that it is not our God.
It is not the same judge, it is not the same. Right,
like the Jews and like the Samaritan woman, Basil says,
you've lost the faith, You've lost God. You do not
worship the God that we worship. Who is trinity? You know?
(27:34):
MEA says, I reject your trinity. Basil says, you no
longer have God. Saint John christilsom. Jews do not have God,
they do not have the Father, they do not have
the worship of God the Father. Exactly what Jesus says
in John five and John eight. What is the patristic
(27:57):
terminology here? Oh, it's exactly what we say, it isn't it. Yeah,
And I'm going to talk about them still lying about
Palamas because they haven't read Palamas. They don't know that
the entire first Triad is against natural theology. And Palamas says,
if Plato got one conceptual idea about God right, it
(28:18):
really doesn't matter at all because it's all demonic and worthless.
The very point that we're trying to make, getting one
thing or one attribute doesn't equate to worshiping and loving
the thing. All that equates to is getting one attribute, right.
That's it, And we're gonna see what Jesus says about
(28:42):
getting one attribute or a handful of attributes right. It
doesn't get you anywhere. It's not salvific. Now, they said,
I don't have a problem saying it's not soelvific. Oh, really,
you don't have a problem saying that it's Then why
does Vatican two use the terminology of salvific presence in Islam?
(29:06):
By admitting that, you're admitting that Vatican two is a
surrendering of the position. Remember Tomashevsky's opening slides. He believes
that Islam is not self effict and it does not
get you to God, but that the reference is the same.
(29:29):
And the whole point of this debate again is that
Vatican two's documents don't just say, okay, Muslims have a
conception of God. They think they love God, they think
they worship God. It says together with US Catholics, they
do it, you liars, along with us Muslims adore along
(29:56):
with US Catholics. Muslims adore the one God. Let's get
a little refresher. What did the medieval popes say they
worship demons? The reason this doesn't work is that it's
that's a false analogy, because in the case of certain
reference and intentionality, you might be able to intend the
(30:19):
same deity. And if if if no stra Ta tra
Vatican or Illuminingentium only kept it at that's what they believe,
you might be able to make the text work. The
problem is that that's not all that it says. It
actually says that they do adore the same deity that
we do. The one they do adore doesn't say they
(30:42):
think they adore the one God. It says they do
adore the one God, living and subsisting in himself, merciful
and all powerful, the creator of heaven and earth. They
take pains to submit to his undisputable and indiscrutable. His
inscrutable decree is just as Abraham. So in sentence, let
me finish in sentence two one and two of Nora
(31:06):
Tate three, there is no qualification that what has been
said so far is merely their intention or their perception.
It identifies the adoration, which in Catholic theology is a
term of worship with what Muslims already possess, and you
just admitted at the beginning that onto logically speaking, it's
(31:29):
not the same referent. So even if they intend it,
it doesn't matter because Vatican two says that they actually
adore that God. You finished, Yeah, okay, great, So.
Speaker 7 (31:40):
I understand what it says, and I think that it
could have said it better.
Speaker 5 (31:44):
But I also want to focus on.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
Why are you able to say that infallible dogmatic decrees
from the Vatican could be stated better.
Speaker 4 (31:53):
I'm not.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
You just said it could be better. So are you
more competent than the papacy?
Speaker 3 (31:59):
No, I'm not.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
Well, you just said it could be stated better, So
in this case you are right.
Speaker 2 (32:04):
No, I just want to.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
I'm not meaning to be rude to you, Calk Primer,
but this paper takes on Swinburne and other pretty pretty
popular proponents of tomistic natural theology go ahead.
Speaker 5 (32:19):
So what that paper says, it doesn't say.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
Documents contradict. So when you go to another place where
it says, well, do you admit that Jesus is and God?
That doesn't address my argument that the docum
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.